Navigate:

March 17, 2011

Categories:

The House held a lively debate this morning over the place of federal funding in supporting public radio as it prepares to vote on a bill to bar stations from using federal funds to pay NPR.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), is the latest in a string of Republican attempts to strip NPR of federal funding. While several previous efforts, including one passed Tuesday as part of a temporary spending bill, have targeted the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, today’s bill is aimed squarely at NPR by restricting how local stations can spend their CPB and other federal grants.

“Let me be clear, this measure will not prohibit local stations from receiving any funding,” Rep. Lamborn said on the House floor this morning during debate over a procedural rule tied to the bill. “It will just not allow them from using taxpayer money to fund NPR programming and dues. They can do it without federal dollars by embracing the private sector. I want NPR to grow on its own. I’d like it to thrive. Just remove the taxpayers from the equation.”

In an interview with POLITICO Wednesday evening, Rep. Lamborn said the bill was designed to minimize damage to local public radio stations, while beginning the process of weaning NPR off federal money.

“By restricting the direct funding to NPR, and by restricting the local affiliates’ ability to buy NPR programming, if you add all that up, we are looking at, by our best calculation, about $60 million in savings per year.”

But Democrats speaking on the House floor today repeatedly said that the bill would save no taxpayer money, and painted it as an ideological stunt sparked by last week’s release of a sting video by conservative activist filmmaker James O’Keefe showing NPR’s top fundraiser disparaging conservatives and saying that NPR would be better off in the long term without federal funding.

“This bill has no effect whatsoever on the deficit, and saves no money, not a dime,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). “This is purely ideological bill so our members can go home and brag about what they have done to public radio.”

The theme running throughout many of the comments of Republicans supporting the bill was that they, personally, were fans of NPR – and certainly of their local NPR affiliate stations – but didn’t think it was appropriate for the federal government to fund it given the budget deficit.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), for example, said that NPR had it was precisely because NPR had been “wildly successful” and had such growing listenership that “they should be moving to a model where they could sustain themselves.”

Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) said that he’s “heard some inaccurate things on National Public Radio before” but that if funding is cut, as he supports that it be, “I personally will increase my contribution” to his local stations.

None of the Republicans this morning mentioned O’Keefe’s video but several Democrats did.

Perhaps most interestingly, though, was the way the debate revealed a vast divide between the Republicans and Democrats about the government’s proper place when it comes to the media.

Rep. Lamborn hinted in his comments on the floor, and explained further in his interview last night, that he has doubts about the constitutionality of Congress paying for media content, in much the same way that many Republicans had doubts about the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health care reform law.

‘In my own reading of the Constitution, I don’t see anything remotely approaching government having a role in the media,” he said, nothing that Congress’s funding of public media was set up in a time when there were far fewer media choices provided by the private market.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) provided the opposite view.

“The public owns the airwaves,” he said. “In a country that wasn’t run by corporations, we wouldn’t be having this debate. Theoretically, it should all be public radio.”

Tags:

Share this Article

Reader Comments (22)

Pages

1

Yup. Going after BIG BIRD is a sure sign the GOP is cracking up!!!
The bill will go no where as most GOP freakshow bills should. But we can all see this is how DESPERATE the Republicans who crashed our economy are.

If it ain't Fox propaganda it's leftist according to the Reich wing / Republican party , they hate anything they don't own , control and profit from. They don't like NPR and call it leftist because NPR is not corporate owned , they will report the truth and facts , and that upsets the hell out of Republicans , you see truth and facts are the enemy of the Republican party , there is a reason Murdoch and the Reich wing / Republicans started up Fox propaganda .

Posted By: If it ain't Fox propaganda it's leftist according to the Reich wing / Republican party , they hate a | March 17, 2011 at 01:11 PM

If NPR and PBS provide such successful and informative programming they should easily be able to sell ads and support themselves. If that somehow implies corporate control, go the way of Consumer Reports and become self sustaining with gifts and memberships

Posted By: If NPR and PBS provide such successful and informative programming they should easily be able to sel | March 17, 2011 at 01:39 PM

How much is this going to save us? 10 million? we are wasting trillions of dollars overseas, yet the republicans (save ron paul and walter jones) won't even consider cutting there. All cuts are meaningless unless they address the heavy defense and military spending.

If they cut off federal funding for NPR, they ought to stop it also for Fox News who ended up with Juan Williams. What? Fox does not get any federal money?
In all seriousness, I think there is a need for a "public radio / television" that would carry arts and other programming that would not attract commercial advertisers. Granted, the first Amendment to the Constitution stops anyone from dictating content, but for their own survival, the bunch that comes after NPR should stay far away from partisan bias -- Even if one political party is instrumental in putting in the funding, they won't be in power forever. And, to be honest, if we want one-sided commentary and pseudo news from broadcasters, we have plenty of sponsors who will pay for that, without having soft-spoken, government payroll announcers run programs where they pretend they are fairly reporting.

NPR and PBS should be cut off from taxpayer funding. Small though the amount might be it will help the budget. The main reason though is to eliminate funding of political partisanship and propaganda paid for by taxpayer dollars.

If James O'Keefe was on the other end of the phone call to Gov Walker, he would have resigned by now.
The Democrats need to grow a spine and push back against the Republican craziness. Speaker Beohner, where are the JOBS?
Since the GOP has had control of the House, they have done nothing to facilitate job growth; instead, they have gone after womens rights; Muslims, gays, and now NPR!
The Republicans are routinely hacking away at funding for the Health Care Act; gutting monies meant for regulatory agencies, and have targeted Wall Street reform legislation, passed last year, for the next law that needs "unraveling"! I thought we enacted these laws as a result of Wall St. et al nearly running our country over a cliff!

Corporate America and Big Oil also need to be off the taxpayers teat ..... Record profits and they get taxpayer subsidies ...... Take away 1% of big oil handouts from the taxpayers and you could fund NPR for years !!!! But typical for the new Repub congress which was elected because of jobs, we are two and a half months in and NOT ONE jobs bill !!!! MR. BOEHNER WHERE ARE THE JOBS !!!!

It's worth noting that commercial radio receives more tax dollars than public radio. Federal campaign money is used to buy ads, and the governments spends over 1Billion on announcements for Army recruiting, health & safety, etc. Public Radio is required to air these things free, if at all.
I don't hear anyone calling for the removal of this federal funding that supports their re-elections. Not to mention free use of public-owned and funded airwaves.

" ... a sting video by conservative activist filmmaker James O’Keefe showing NPR’s top fundraiser disparaging conservatives and saying that NPR would be better off in the long term without federal funding."
In all fairness, you should point out that this was not just a sting video (whatever that is) it is a falsified video. It has been cut-and-pasted in a way as to present people saying things they did not say, or said in a completely different context.
While seeming to be straightforward, calling manipulations like these "sting" videos lets the liars who make them get off free and ignores their dishonesty.

While they are at it, they can vote against any further federal subsides and loan guarantees for private , for-profit Nuclear power plants.
If nuclear power plants can't exist on investor financing they don't deserve to exist at all.
Why is the administration proposing to give nuclear power plants load guarantees of billions of dollars.
One nuclear plant alone costs from 3-5 billion dollars.
The risk and costs are borne by the US taxpayers who promise private investor that they won't be able to lose money on the deal because the taxpayers will make up for any losses.
It's no different from the bank bailout or the GM bailout.
Time for Nuclear Power plants to stop relying on "welfare" from the taxpayers. If investors won't pony up the money, there's a pretty good chance it's because it's a BAD INVESTMENT

Posted By: While they are at it, they can vote against any further federal subsides and loan guarantees for pri | March 17, 2011 at 07:47 PM